s_p

November 6, 1998

Your description is vague and brief, but a lot of photographers

use the Hasselblad for that kind of work. You can rent it and try

it out.

I wouldn't settle on specific focal legnth lenses until you try

them out. One of the good things about a camera like Hasselblad

is most towns have a pro shop that will rent other lenses to you

by the day so you can see how useful they will be to what you want

to photograph and you like to shoot it. I have assisted in

fashion shooting and done interior/architectural photography for

local publications. In both these situations a camera with

interchangeable backs and availible Polaroid backs is a GREAT

asset. In fashion, you can shoot film as fast as you can change

magazines. For the location/architectural work, you can tweak

your lighting and take polaroids until your shot is pefect and

then shoot film by simply switching to a film back. Polaroids are

not cheap; reshoots are worse, however.

Before you invest, RENT. Remember; unless you already have a photo

business rolling and just want to upgrade your gear, you have to

figure out a way of earning the money to pay for all this stuff.

The cameras and all that are just the tip of the iceberg of

starting a photo business (I assume you are just starting a

photobusiness by the nature of your question). Hasselblad is

great (I use it myself) but REAL expensive. I often wonder if I

shouldn't have bought a Bronica S2A instead; for the same price I

paid for my Hasse body, 2 lenses, 2 backs and polaroids (all used

gear) I could have gotten a suitcase full of Bronica stuff and

still had money left over. Oh well.

Bronica, Mamiya are also MF cameras that have interchanging backs.

I have used Bronica only occassionally. The SQAI is really a lot

like Hasselblad; costs a little less I think. I don't really like

the Mamiya RZ or RB cameras from Mamiya so I will let others

write about them.

November 6, 1998

- I have no sympathy for fussy photographers (pro or amatuer) who

complain their prints from negs aren't

the right color. If you can't communicate your color

preferences to a lab, then you should try a different lab,

or maybe a different hobby.

Yikes! You know, I've never seen a sign in a lab that said 'Sloppy

work done here' but sometimes that is what I have gotten. If any labs

aren't serious about offering quality custom printing services, they

should get into some other business.

I know a number of fine art photographers who use color negs for their

work. They have teaching jobs at colleges and universities and thus

have full access to color darkrooms. That's how you get really good

color prints: make them yourself.

Another option I am currently investigating with the lab here in town

that I trust are lightjet prints from a digital file. I am told that

I send in the file on a Jaz or Zip, looking just the way I like it,

and they send me back print. I hope to have my first print back

before the month is done; I will let you know what I think.

Expensive, but for us fussy photographers without our own color

darkrooms it may be an option.

November 4, 1998

With just the info given here, I would say that your problem

originates in the use of transparency film for the image

original. One of the blessings/curses of transparency film like

RSX 100 is that it is color balanced for 5500 K. If you go

above or below that to any great degree without correcting with

filtration, you get a color temp shift you can see. 5500 K is

just an average number for daylight --- it is the color of

daylight around 2:00 pm on a cloudless summer day. The problem

is, as you have discovered with your picture, that it is

possible to have light of several color temperatures in the same

picture. Take an overcast day with patches of sunlight peeking

through the clouds early morning or late afternoon (my

favorite). The rays of sunlight are going to be pretty warm ---

less than 5000K probably. The rest of the light, filtered by

bouncing around in the clouds overhead, is goint to be pretty

cool --- much more than 5000k. The diffuse light through the

clouds is what is going to be filling your shadows (equals cool

or blue) while the direct sunlight is going to overpower the

weak diffuse cool light in other areas. Sound familiar? I have

not seen your picture but I think I have been there before. So,

with your interneg, if you correct for excess cool, your picture

may grow too warm. If you correct for excess warm, your picture

may grow too cool.

I think first you should decide if maybe you got a print that

slipped through quality control. Go back to your lab and

explain the problem to them; unless they are complete crooks

they should at least take the time to explain to you and examine

your print. They should have a set of color analysis filters --

- these are clear pale magenta, yellow, etc., filters in

cardboard frames. If the color print looks off, you can hold

these filters in front of your eye in good light and examine

your print. Keep looking through the filters till you find one

that makes the color look a little more correct. I'm not

promising you that you will be able to do this the first time

you try; it takes practice and a trained eye. Its hard to do,

harder to explain -- ask the lab people to help you. Maybe when

they help you they will see for themselves what, if anything,

can be done for your print. This should at least help you to

determine if they can correct your color print by adjusting the

filtration of the enlarger. Those Kodak "How to take pictures"

encyclopaedias at the library that are otherwise so full of bad

advice explain this process pretty well.

It is possible that with a simple adjustment they can make a

better print for you. It is also possible that you will have to

live with a compromise due to the color temp conflict -- either

1)correct warms and too cool cools or 2)correct cools and too

cool warms or 3)warms a little cooler than they are in your

print and cools a little warmer.

What can you do to avoid this in the future? One way is to use

color neg film --- it's getting better all the time. Try the

Agfa Optima; I like it. If prints to hang on the wall are your

ultimate goal, I think color neg is the right way to get there

right now. In the future, with new technologies, that may

change. When I was doing color darkroom work in school years

ago I discovered that it was POSSIBLE to dodge and burn while

changing filtration in the enlarge but that can possible mean

spending 8 hours or more trying and trying to get a result that

looks convincing and possibly never getting there. I think a

good way to do it is to scan your neg, do the color correction

in Photoshop and have it printed digitally using a lightjet

printer. I'm tring to learn how to do all that right now --- I

am lucky enough to have access to this high tech gear through my

work.

good luck.

November 1, 1998

Dear Craig;

I have the Sekonic L-398 Studio Deluxe II meter with the disc

attatchments you describe and a single slide marked "high." I do

not have multiple slides and do not know what you mean by ISO

setting slides --- on my meter, ISO is set on the dial. I hope

what I can tell you about it relates to your model.

This meter is complicated; I would have never been able to figure

it out without someone telling me. Ordinarily, under daylight

conditions the Sekonic is used with the "high" slide inserted in

the slot at the top under the ping pong ball like diffuser. Set

the ISO with the dial in the center, press the button and

release. The needle will move to a number on the scale from 0 to

1.25K (I guess this scale is footcandles). Turn the dial until

the number indicated by the needle lines up with the black

pointer. The bottom side of the dial will give you all shutter

speed/Fstop combinations. If you wish to add or subtract from

your exposure and don't feel like doing the math in your head,

move the reading from the pointer to the black +1, +2 or -1, -2.

If you use the EV system on your camera, there is also a space

indicating the proper EV number on the dial.

In subdued light (like evening or early morning), remove the

slide and line up the number you get from the needle reading with

the red 'H' arrow. There is a place in the back to keep the

slide so you don't lose it. I have found that in really dim

light the meter did not register but with bright moonlight or

under a streetlamp meaningful measurements could be achieved. If

you use the meter with slide removed in bright light, the needle

will jump off the scale. If you use the meter in dim light with

the slide in, the needle won't move. If you remove the slide and

use the black pointer or insert the slide and use the red

pointer, your reading will be way off.

The bottom outer ring of the dial is F stops-numbered in white

from f128 to 0.7

The lower inner ring is shutter speed -- from 60 seconds (in red)

to 8k (or 1/8000th) in white. The ring inside of that of red

numbers marked cine is for movie cameras. The cine numbers

indicate frames per second.

The dome like diffuser is what I use almost always. It will

catch the light coming from all directions. I usually use it by

pointing it back towards the lens of my camera or by holding it

so the light hitting the dome is the same as the light striking

the subject for a good all round exposure reading. I can then

take measurements from the bright light, from the shadows, etc.,

and make more educated guesses as to what my exposure will be.

The flat disc diffuser is for measuring an isolated light source

(if you want to compare a key to a fill for example). The black

disc with holes punched in it converts the meter to a reflected

light meter.

Here is how I might compare the Sekonic to your TTL camera meter.

Place a gray card in the sun. Use the black diffuser with the

holes punched in it to measure the light reflected from the gray

card. Then compare with the TTL meter in your SLR. They ought

to be the same.

I am sorry if this seems complicated, but hopefully it will be

clearer if you read this over with the meter in front of you. I

got my Sekonic years ago, but since I started using flash gear I

have needed a modern digital flash meter. I have found the

Sekonic to be as reliable as the digital meter for incident

readings and it never needs batteries.

October 25, 1998

Whoah! Something happened to the answer I intended to post.

I intended to say that not all polaroid backs fit all Hasselblad

SWCs. My cheapie $200.00 NPC polaroid back does not fit it

because the tripod socket of the SWC gets in the way. Basically,

you need one of the Polaroid backs where the film gate is in the

center of the back, not closer to the top or the bottom side. I

have rented the SWC with the expensive Polaroid back by

Hasselblad --- Polaroid back 100, I think --- and that fit. I

have been told that no Polaroid will fit the earliest versions of

the SWC --- I have only used the later versions as rentals.

Get the ground glass! I found the ground glass invaluble for

getting truly distortion free pictures with the SWC. The ground

glass has little clips to affix your waist level finder on it --

easy to use.

Visit <a href="http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/places.html">

http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/places.html</a> for a look at

some of my pictures. The fourth picture on the page was taken

with the SWC. I think it looks like a picture that would require

movements.

October 25, 1998

Take a look at <a href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg.tcl?msg_id=000CPz">http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000CPz</a>. There is a bit of

commentary on the Hasse SWC camera there.

I have been told that very early versions of this camera will not

accept the Polaroid back. The only SWCs I ahve used are alter,

rentals. The SWC does not accept my cheapie $200.00 NPC Polaroid

back --- it requires the more expensive Hasselblad Polaroid back

(I can't remember which model --- Polaroid 100? Where I rent the

SWC rents it as a kit. I just wanted you to know so you could

try before you buy.

I have some of my pictures at <a href="http://www.icon-stl.net/

~stefan/places.html>http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/

places.html</a>. The fourth picture on the page was taken

with the Hasselblad SWC. This tall office building was 600-800

feet away. I was standing on a small embankment that elevated me

slightly. I think the SWCs performance can rival a camera with

movements in certain situations. I would love to use one as a

street photography camera.

October 24, 1998

By coincidence (funny how it works) I came across a page with

some info on the very subject of mounting 35mm Nikon lenses to

the Bronica S2. Go to <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/

nrfbron.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfbron.htm</a>.<

p>

When I originally read your posting, I assumed you were talking

about Nikon SLR lenses. The author of this page has info about

an adapter for old Nikon RF lenses. The adapter shown is

designed to do this and so will probably work, but it doesn't

seem to be cheap --- it and the lenses it will work with are

rare collectibles according to this page. I would also point

out that these RF lenses do not have automatic diaphragms ---

you would have to open up to full aperture to focus, stop down

and take your picture.

October 24, 1998

If you have not already done so, visit <a href="http://

www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html/">http://www.smu.edu/

~rmonagha/bronica.html/</a>. Its a huge site with all kinds

of info, including DIY lens hacking for the Bronica.

Bronica lenses for the S2 are not that expensive used (at least

not expensive compared to other MF systems). Perhaps it would

be much easier to find what you want in original S2 equipment.

October 24, 1998

I have used the Kenko X2 for Hasselblad with good results. I

have not done lens tests, side by side comparisons, etc., but an

under the impression that it delivers better results than

enlarging a smaller portion of your negaive would give you.

The focussing screen is dark with the 2x converter mounted on my

f2.8 lens, though. With an f4 or f5.6 lens it might be much too

dark for accurate focus.

I have been told that most of the off brand 2x converters for MF

cameras were made by the same manufacturer so there should be

little (if any) difference. So a Kenko = Rokunar = Vivitar. I

don't know if this last bit of info is accurate.

October 22, 1998

I think there is probably nothing wrong with your Hasselblad.

The problem is probably with your test ---- the 28 on 35mm and

the 80mm on 6x6 are giving you such different fields of

reference.

Do a new test. Put a 50mm on your 35mm and an 80mm on your 6x6.

Take a picture where an object of a certain size, say, a window

in your wall that is 30 feet distant, occupies half the frame.

In a darkroom, make 11x14s where the window frame is the same

size in each print. The print from the Hasselblad will blow the

35mm away. If you do the test with slide film, project the

slides so they are the same size on the screen. Again, the

Hasse will produce the more detailed image hands down.

The big jump in image quality with MF comes with the fact that

in order to get an enlargement, a great deal less enlarging is

necessary.

October 22, 1998

I wouldn't worry too much about exactly what size MF camera to

buy at this point (6x6 or 6x7 or whatever). I would start by

trying to figure out if you really do want to jump to a larger

format. If you do, you will notice a BIG jump in your lab and/or

printing costs.

If you do your own printing, do you have access to an enlarger

that can handle medium format? Some enlargers cannot go beyond

35mm. I started off with a durst enlarger that could supposedly

handle 35mm and 6x6 but there was such a bad vignetting problem

with the 6x6 in this enlarger that it did not allow me to make a

print from the whole 6x6 negative. If your enlarger can handle

MF, you will probably have to buy a 75mm or 80mm enlarger lens, a

new neg carrier, larger trays, more chemistry, etc., etc., etc.<

p>

If you have a minilab do your printing at bargain prices, realize

that they may not do so for 120 or 220 film. If you are on a

budget, you may have to budget for more than just a new camera --

to have the same numbe of prints made will probably increase

quite a bit as you jump from 35mm to 120mm. In order to see the

jump in image quality that a larger neg size will give you, you

will want something bigger and better than 5x7 machine prints.

Custom printing at a lab is expensive, but if you really want to

get into using your MF gear at its full potential, it will be a

road you will have to travel down.

I started using MF cameras a few years ago when I was in school.

We had a lab at school with enlargers and neg carriers and all

that jazz for 35mm through 4x5. Out on my own, however, I find

the cost of custom color lab prints from my 6x6 pretty damn

expensive. I started off in art school with 35mm, moved to a

Yashica TLR that I bought for less than $100.00. After I had

used the Yashica for a while I realized I really liked the things

that the increased negative size gave me. Unless I really think

I need to be able to enlarge the negative a great deal, though,

these days I use my 35mm just because film and processing costs

are prohibitive.

I don't want to discourage you; I want you to know that you may

be getting into more than just a new camera.

October 22, 1998

Jim Greenland;

We can't avoid the fact that the images we create exist in the

real world and exist in reference to other images. Even if I

choose photography over painting for whatever reasons (easier,

less messy, oil paints are toxic, allergic to animal hair

bristles --- whatever) the image is going to look different

switching from painting to photo and that difference is

significant. In the world of images, looking different is

meaning different. Compare a photographic study of a nude to a

painting by Lucien Freud or Titian (original painting, not a

photograph in a book). Both describe the human form and the

Freud or Titian, I think, compete with photography in terms of

realism since they give us clues that describe the mass of the

figure, the layers of pigment irridesce to describe the slight

transluscence of flesh. Photography captures and carefully

delineates details even the most astute observer would fail to

notice like tiny moles on the skin. But the photography is

thought to be more of 'the real' than the painting (even though

it often presents a view we would NEVER see with our eyes) since

it came from a machine rather than a brush I guess. In a world

where a huge number of representation technologies exist

(everything from sand painting to holography) the differences in

the representation technology as chosen by the artist become

ultimately very significant. That brings me back to my initial

reason for starting is thread.

I think as photographers, in the choices we make and in the work

we do, we explore the capabilities of a given medium. Fashions

like pointilism come and go, I guess. But pointilism did not

start out as a fashion, it started out as an idea about the

nature of vision and perception. Believe it or not, the initial

pointilists were very interested in the science of vision and

qualities of light (we see reflected light, not matter itself)

and pointilism itself was initially an attempt to express these

ideas in painting form. After the initial practitioners came

the imitators who made paintings using only dots; there is a

world of difference between a Seurat (sp?) and an imitation.

I believe that as photographers, by our actions and work, we

explore the possibilities of our medium. True exploration

discovers the potential meaning and capabilities of a medium.

Digital imaging is an interesting case, for, as Scott has said

above, it is most successful when it looks like something else

(film). But it is not film -- it is only like film. I think as

this technology continues to develop we will discover more about

the nature of digital imaging -- its advantages and

disadvantages. A lot of the beauty of photography can come from

it's technical shortfallings (as an imitation of human vision it

fails on several counts). What happens when we can sidestep a

lot of those shortfallings through seamless retouching? Do we

end up with technically perfect but boring pictures?

October 20, 1998

A footnote to the above posting.

The fingerprint I could not see in the viewfinder so I elected

not to worry about it. But there were little crumbs of black

stuff (bits of decayed foam rubber or something similar) that

were gluey and made annoying black spots. I took an old, dead,

electronic SLR (unrepairable) and tried cleaning the mirror with

a brush made from loosely wrapping a piece of lens tissue aroung

the end of a cotton swab. This brush I made slightly damp with

bestine.

It worked. The bestine left a cloudy residue on the surface of

the mirror of the dead 35mm camera that evaporated in seconds. I

tried it on a corner of the mirror of the hasselblad with no ill

effect. I did the rest of the Hasse mirror and all the black

stuff and the fingerprints came off.

The black stuff was in the camera when I bought it. I think

there are some foam gaskets inside that are decaying; at some

time in the future I would like to replace those.

If the black stuff returns I will try this cleaning methosd again

but I don't reccommend you go slopping bestine on your camera

mirror. I plan to do this sort of cleaning only when I

absolutely must (like every 5 years or so). I offer no

guarantees; try it at your own risk, although I would warn you

that bestine may haze or dissolve certain plastic parts (I think

the fresnel viewscreen (or ground glass) in most 35mm cameras is

plastic). Try it on a camera you don't value, try it on the

corner of the mirror --- if you cannot accept the fact that there

is some risk involved here then don't do it.

The mirror of an SLR is silvered on the top surface, not the

bottom like your bathroom mirror. This makes the least abrasive,

brushing action harmful. Do not scrub. A repairman I met said

he cleans camera mirrors with a lens tissue wad held in tweezers

and is very careful not to let the tweezers touch the surface of

the lens. He didn't know if solvent would work but suggested it

might.

stefan

October 19, 1998

I am convinced from the little I know about art history that

photography had a profound effect on painting. These forms of

representation do not exist in a vacuum. Manet, Degas, other

painters of the 19th century are known to have been enthusiastic

photographers as well. Many of the expressionists used

photographic form in their paintings --- Degas with compositions

that had been suggested to him by photographic cropping,

Bonnard, Manet, the list goes on. Photography was invented

almost simultaneously in several places, two of the inventors

were artists or aspired to artistry. Daguerre was a painter

known for his realistic effects and dioramas; Fox Talbot was a

frustrated artist with a skill for science. Photography was

invented using a tool of the painter (the camera obscura) that

had existed since the 15th century or so. The interrelatedness

of painting, drawing and photography is well documented.

It is obvious that tool choice shapes our message. In this

forum there are reams written over whether one should use a TLR

or an SLR, Fuji Velvia or EPP, etc. Isn't a switch from analog

to digital recording of images, with all the advantages Scott

has mentioned in previous postings, a highly significant one?

It is more significant to me than the choice between a

rangefinder or an SLR for example.

The jump from drawing or painting to photography is a big one,

but, in our culture with its strong emphasis on media

communication (as oppossed to say, oral communication amongst

the hunter gatherers of the world) we can establish a category

in which both these things fit----perhaps we can call it "two

dimensional representation." In this category we can find sub

categories --- drawing, painting, photography, etc. All of

these sub categories have different characteristics which are

significant. It is interesting to me that both drawing and

photography share so many characteristics and yet are not really

at all alike (I practice both). When we make the switch from

analog to digital photography, we find that the two media share

a lot of qualities but are really very different. I'm glad you

brought up the photo collages of Uelsmann, Scott. Like you, I

initially found them interesting (because I didn't know how he

did them). After I did a bit of darkroom work, I began to see

how it could be done (although I never went there myself) and

the bloom was off of them for me. I would support the

implication of your above statement in saying that a large part

of the appeal of photography is the appeal of the real.

This appeal of the real leads me back to my questions concerning

digital photography. It looks like analog --- but its not.

What you see may and may not have been manipulated. Perhaps it

is the possibility of manipulation that makeds me say that it is

different from analog. Is this difference significant? I am

currently not certain. But if we look back into the history of

photography I think I can establish a case for the assertion

that photography did not start to be taken seriously or start to

take itself seriously until it established an identity that was

distinct from other forms of two dimensional representation.

Rather than being 'painting plus a little science' which is what

daguerre and his contemporaries thought of it, it had to become

photography as a distinct form of representation.

The pure and seamless mutability of digital imaging causes me

tro be certain that although it is like photography, it

certainly is not photography in the classic sense.

P.S: Scott --- the last I heard of Jerry Uelseman (sp?) he was

doing the animation sequence for the opening credits of the less

than prime time TV show OUTER LIMITS. I don't know whether his

prescence there is sad or genius.

October 18, 1998

Part of my message failed to post; I am re posting that

part.You can see some of my digital imaging expiraments at

<a href="http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/other.html"> my

web's other page.</a>

You can also access my digital images through <a href=

"http:www.icon-stl.net/~stefan"> my web page index at

http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan.</a>

I also intended to post that I found creating these digital

images to be an intrigueing and amusing activity, but I do

not consider them to be extraordinarily interesting or

successful. There seems to be little in them other than a

certain amount of novelty value, and this I find true of all

digital imaging.

Perhaps I am being too hard on a medium that has really just

been created but I want to get the ball rolling of

discussions of the uses and abuses of the new technology. If

we as photographers can't figure out what to do with the new

technology, then who can?

If anyone knows of good links to good example images,

please post them.

October 18, 1998

There have been several interesting postings in regard to

digital photography (check out <a href="http://db.photo.net/

bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000HIZ">Should I fear the

digital revolution?</a>). While I have seen a lot of

interesting digital equiptment and techniques, I haven't seen

much interesting digital photography. Basically, what I have

seen is either indistinguishable from conventional analog

photography, or it is a technically sophisticated form of

collage.

You can see some of my own digital experiments at <a href=

"http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/other.html>my web site

"other" page</a>. While my own digital experimentation has

been fun to do and a learning experience, I would not consider

any oese images to be extremely interesting, meaningful or

sophisticated. They are more like little one line jokes or

illustrations.

When photography was invented in imitation of painting and

drawing, it soon established itself as having its own aesthetic,

its own nature. When will digital have its own aesthetic, its

own nature, its own identity? Does it need it?

October 18, 1998

Usually a tiny mark, nick or scratch will have no perceivable

effect on image quality. A coating of dust or marks all over the

surface of the glass, like you might get by cleaning your lens

with a shirt tail, apparently will (although I have not tested

this myself).

I used to have the classic Nikon brand lens caps with the little

clutches on my 35mm SLR lenses but everytime I would go out on one

of my assignments with all of these lenses bouncing around in my

bag, these little caps would just pop off. Thus I got a tiny nick

in the front of one of my lenses. It is one of the lenses I use A

LOT (the 35mm f2) but have noticed no change in performance due to

the nick. Now I use the screw on metal caps --- they take longer

to remove but do not pop off by themselves.

Probably this tiny mark will not affect your lenses performance.

Unfortunately, such marks drastically decrease the resale value.

October 16, 1998

I think we are getting away from the original question; I don't

think it matters.

Just after making my previous posting on this topic, I saw the

new Lightphase back from Phase One. It has to be the most

impressive digital camera I have seen yet. They have a web page

at <a href="http://www.phaseone.com">www.phaseone.com</a>. The new Lightphase capture back is an instant capture

system that fits on a Hasselblad (but only a Hasselblad or a

Sinar) and was shown at Photokina (not that I went). A lot of

the problems I had been complaining about in regard to the

Dicomed Instant capture system have been eliminated. At an

estimated price of $20,000 for the back and camera (Phase One is

in a limited partnership of some kind with Hasselblad), it is

less than about 1/3rd the price of the Dicomed but this price

does not include the computer you will need as well.

Shortly after it's release, Lightphase will also be availible

with an adapter to make it a portable unit.

At $20,000 though, I still think the Kowa 66 is a bargain.

stefan

October 16, 1998

I have an older Hasselblad 500c. When I bought it there was some dust

and dirt on the mirror. The dust came off easily with compressed air

but there is still a finger print on the lower edge of the mirror.

Any suggestions for getting rid of the fingerprint without damaging

the mirror?

stefan

October 16, 1998

I use compressed air. Use gentle gusts; don't blast it. Don't

shake the can or hold it sideways or upside down; this will cause

freezing cold propellant to fly out the nozzle and may damage

your camera. I always squirt once in the air to test before

applying the compressed air to my camera.

stefan

October 14, 1998

Mal;

I hope you enjoy your new camera.

The V is for Vorlaufwerk --- self timer. The same switch is for

flash sync --- the bulb for flash bulbs and the lightning bolt

for strobe. To use the self time, pull the lever to V, press the

shutter button and it goes. Flash will fire if plugged in when

useing V.

I have never used a Rollie with a meter so I will not address

those questions.

Rollies I have used set the asa by pressing the center of the asa

indicator and turning it or by turning it with a thumb nail. If

yours has a meter, it is probab;y cross coupled to the meter and

so maybe my advice on that does not apply.

A lot of the old Rollies have cross coupled EVS exposure systems

which can be pretty frustrating to use if you don't know how to

disengage them. I prefer EVS coupling off on my cameras. On the

front of the camera, on either side of the two lenses are a pair

of tiny dials. If the one on the left has a pointer and numbers

and the one on the right has a pair of what look like parentheses

(4 of them, one thin set one fat set) then you have a camera with

an EVS like I know about.

To engage or disengage EVS, fiddle with the little parentheses in

the RH knob (the inner set is actually a tiny dial---set it by

pushing and turning). If they line up to look like a linked

chain, EVS is engaged and shutter and f stop are locked together.

If they are so the chain is broken, EVS is off and you can set F

stop and shutter speed independently.

If you have never loaded one, a Rollie is hard to figure out.

Get your friend to show you --- once you know how it us really

easy. I can load a Rollie faster than I can load any other

camera other than a 35mm with a motor drive.

Even if it is a very old one, if this Rollie is in proper shape

it will take excellent pictures. Have fun.stefan

October 12, 1998

I have worked a bit as a\photographer and an assistant with some

of the new, high end digital cameras in commercial studios. I

think digital continues to become a more viable option every

month --- but I think film is also here to stay for quite some

time.

Those $5000.00 dollar digital cameras may be able to turn your

image around faster than film but your Kowa 66 will produce more

luscious color, more detail in the shadows and highlights and a

more breathtaking print. A $200.00 35mm SLR will produce a

better 11x14 than the new Kodak/Nikon or Canon/Kodak DSC or

whatever they are calling it now.

To get to a place where your digital camera would rival the color

depth and detail and resolution of film, you have to spend a lot

of money. At the studio I contract my services to, I am informed

that one of the digital backs for one of the camera systems costs

$60,000.00. I double checked what I just typed and, if your

wondering, I did not stick any extra zeros in there by mistake.

That 60k buys you the back alone --- you still need a camera to

stick it on, lights and a computer with about 500 mb ram before

you can take your first picture. So were talking about cameras

that are really expensive, not at all portable ... I would point

out that the studio I contract to is known to be an all digital

studio but they also shoot film.

My prediction is that digital photography will continue to take

over in the commercial sector where clients are less worried

about saving pennies on film and more worried about saving

hundreds of dollars on time and retouching. I believe that film

is still the perfect medium for a lot of applications and a lot

of commecial studios will shoot film when it is more appropriate

or convenient and scan. I believe that smaller studios will be

able to continue to use film, as will wedding and portrait

photographers and amateur photographers. I think for many years

hence film will continue to deliver the best image quality at the

most reasonable price. I think digital will also make itself

known in the snapshot and family pictures realm; probably places

like Olin Mills will go digital if they have not already. If

they can get the image quality and reliability of low end digital

cameras printers up and the price way down, then digital imaging

may replace the point and shoot for family pictures but who knows

-- stills from a digital video camera? The consumer market is

pretty fickle but I think people like photographs cause they can

stick them in their pocket to show people their photo of their

new baby or stick them in an envelope and mail them. I don't

think vacation snapshots on your computer monitor is ever going

to seriously challenge the market share of 35mm and APS, at least

not for most people.

Many of the digital camera backs integrate into existing camera

systems. There are digital backs that fit Hasselblad, Mamiya,

etc., or fit 4x5 cameras. There are Canon and Nikon and Minolta

digital cameras that use the existing lenses and accessories.

Probably wont make one for the Kowa, though.

Digital photography is certainly here to stay, and will take a

bite out of film sales, but I think you will be able to get film

for your 66 for a long time yet.

just my prediction

stefan

October 10, 1998

Peter; I have used Selenium toner with Ilford MG FB papers with

good results. I tone prints after a very long washing and a bath

in hypo clear.

Selenium seems to increase the contrast of prints slightly.

Because of this, when I arrive at my final exposure for a print I

intend to tone, I make a few, some slightly lighter than the

others. I have also found that a print that may look good to the

eye will look a little flat when displayed under glass so I don't

make final judgement on which version of the print I prefer to

frame until after I have laid a mat and sheet of glass over it

and looked at it that way(not that I frame a lot of prints).

Selenium also gives my prints a slightly warmish color. I have

found that after toning and drying, many prints with delicate

tonal detail (like clouds in an overcast sky) are easier to see

due to the slight contrast increase.

October 10, 1998

I have used older lenses of all kinds from 35mm to 4x5, some

single coated, some uncoated. I don't find that a lack of

coatings is a tremendous disadvantage; I find flare and lack of

image contrast to be more of a problem with these older lenses

than poor transmission of color (lack of contrast, I suppose,

could make a transparency look washed out and so, arguably, affect

color).

Religious use of lens hoods makes a lot of difference. I've never

done a side-by-side comparison, but I bet an older single coated

lens with a hood would deliver images with equal or greater

contrast than a modern multicoated lens without a hood in most

outdoor lighting situations. Anyone tried this?

I have used the Rollieflexes with Planar and Xenotar f 3.5 lenses.

I shot quite a bit of film with my Rollie E3 with planar lens of

1960s vintage; the images from the Rollie are every bit as sharp,

contrasty and color correct as from a Hasselblad of recent

vintage.

In addition, the TLR design eliminates a lot of mechanical

vibration.

I have never used a Rollie with lenses other than Planar or

Xenotar and so cannot speak with any authority about all such

cameras.

stefan

October 6, 1998

I have a suggestion which may seem a little unorthodox, but when

you consider that you want these images for a web site (showing

them at what? 72 or 150 dpi or so? Who needs a high res scan for

that?) it will work. I wanted to do the same thing, and had 35mm,

6x6, 4x5 and 8x10 chromes that I wanted to use on the site. At a

local lab, amateur grade scans of 35mm chromes were $1.25 each

after you bought the cd. 6x6 and 8x10 scanning charges started at

$15 or $20 -- out of my budget.

I color corrected my lightbox using color correction gels ---

all it needed was a minusgreen filter (30m equivelent). I laid

the transparencies larger than 35mm out, one by one, on the

lightbox with black paper and matboard covering all of the surface

except my image area. I then had a backlit view of my 6x6, 4x5 or

8x10 transparency. I used my Hasselblad with polaroid back to

determine basic exposure. I then photographed each transparency,

bracketing widely, with ektachrome 35mm and extension tube. I

then had 35mm slides of my 6x6 and 4x5 and larger work. I sent my

slides in to be scanned --- since I was doing over 50 images it

cost a little less than $2.00 per image (not including my time --

only film, polaroid, filters, etc.).

The scans were not great quality and would not stand any degree

of enlargement but served adequately for online use.

These days a friend lets me use his scanner so I no longer use

this method.

good luck

stefan

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by s_p